gpd-peer-review

To automate a structured peer review for a physics manuscript, this workflow executes a six-stage reviewer process on manuscript sources and artifacts to generate stage-specific JSON files and a final referee decision.

The six-stage referee workflow for GPD project manuscripts is an automated review process that evaluates claims, evidence, and reproducibility through reader, literature, math, physics, interestingness, and meta stages to produce a final decision.

You can generate referee reports and review artifacts from TeX sources by executing the stage-specific reviewer workflow, which automatically discovers artifacts and outputs files to the .gpd/review directory and a REFEREE-REPORT.

Yes, you can use this peer review workflow on manuscript drafts located in paper, manuscript, or draft directories, as it enforces contract-backed evidence and applies to associated TeX sources within the GPD project.

A limitation of automated peer review for academic manuscripts is that the workflow depends on specific file dependencies and a defined project state to enforce strict round handling and artifact generation.

Yes, the peer review workflow requires preflight checks to ensure proper artifact discovery and stage-specific evaluation before it can generate the final referee decision and JSON artifacts.